This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Dusti. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Two years ago ...

love and commitment to the community
... you were recipient no. 1042 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm a new entrant in Wikipedia and would like a teacher. I'm very much enthusiastic about this and would really appreciate if you will give me insight on how to go about. Thank you very much in advance. I'm looking forward on working with you. SethMakaiWamboi (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dusti! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dusti. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

Miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello all. After a couple of years away from Wikipedia, I've returned to edit sporadically. I know that there are some talkpage stalkers who have been waiting for this day, and hopefully for an answer with regards to Orain. So, here's a brief explanation and answers to what happened.

Ultimately Orain was hacked by one of the staff members. I'm not going to name names here to re-stir a fire and cause chaos and mayhem. Unfortunately this person was trusted and ended up using methods to wipe out the data, redirect the domain, and permanently destroy the Farm. I had attempted to contact the cloud host to see if we could recover some if the data, but unfortunately there was no way to do so. The farm was lost, and ultimately I ended up coming to my wits end with some of the issues that were happening.

In regards to the donations, the donations were spent on some of the hosting costs that we had, at this point I don't remember exact figures. The remaining funds that were left were donated to The Wikimedia Foundation anonymously. Some of you may ask for proof and honestly I wish I still had it, however, I no longer live in Canada nor do I have access to the bank account that was used when these funds came in.

Orain was a wonderful dream project. The potential that it had was unmatched, amazing, and it truly broke my heart when it fell apart the way it did, mainly due to one individual who was upset. That person's actions led to a snowball effect that hurt a lot of people, ruined a lot of hard work, and damaged a lot of relationships.

I am returning to Wikipedia to focus on the Wikipedia project. I'm not here to dwell on the past, hurt people who caused damage to the Orain project, or cause issues based on the past. I believe in this project, I believe in the people of Wikipedia, and I believe that there's a good possibility that another Orain could possibly happen. This is all I have to say on the topic, and I hope that we can all continue to move forward to create this Encyclopedia.

Warmly - Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There were weasel words and unverified claims which I was removing. Supremacism isn't just referring to class discrimination, it's referring to prejudice in general, so I changed class to category.Udihgi (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit you mentioned in your message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.38.11 (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have seen your messages and reverting my edits. I have stated what I have changed in the article. Also, you can read my huge comment on the talk page of that article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C400:149D:A14E:3FE4:C9A3:982D (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you reaching out. The problem is that you removed sourced information in that edit. This is a collaborative project and we need to remain neutral in the information that's contained in an article. I suggest you continue to talk with folks on the talk page to come to a consensus about the information contained in the article. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment. I think my edits show neutrality since it was unbiased and did not state if it is Kurdish or Arab. Anyhow, I won't be reverting any edits further if my edits get reverted. I have made my suggestion that might prevent conflicts and if you refuse it it is up to you after all. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C400:149D:A14E:3FE4:C9A3:982D (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Do not revert unsourced material on wikipedia. "Religionfacts.com" is clearly a self published blog. Should you be reported further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.61.199.202 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've reported you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.61.199.202 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Dustin, You should be explain why reverted my my recent contributions from the article, Kerala Nadvathul Mujahideen.MalayaliWoman (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You removed over 11,000 bits of text citing WP:DIRECTORY and what you felt were poor sources. There are still sources, there's still information there. While it may not be the best, blanking articles doesn't help other people learn about the topic. You're welcome to fix it yourself if you would like, otherwise, leave the problem tags up. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Citations added only for two conferences only. MalayaliWoman (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You still need to state a reason, a valid reason, for removing the rest of the text. Otherwise, it looks like you're attempting to own the article. This is a collaborative effort, so unless the information included is totally and completely false or fictitious, it's okay if it's in the article. The more information given about a topic the better - we're all here to learn. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello my brother, I am from Kerala, I know the organisation that running two madrassas in the kerala. My question why keeping the list of unregistered self-claimed organisations. MalayaliWoman (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw you rightly reverted the speedy deletion request that an IP editor made for John Singer (attorney). Bad as it is, it doesn't meet those criteria. However, I do feel it fails WP:N pretty clearly and I have nominated it for AfD. Feel free to weigh in. Thanks! Rupert Clayton (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

In my best Simon Cowell voice It's repulsive. I've weighed in on the AFD. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 07:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake to say that the bank had $180bn (profit), 5 billion UAH is "roughly" 180 milions USD, not 182 billions USD. Thank you.--81.101.159.55 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Just a friendly heads-up – per NOQUORUM, AfDs that have had no opposition, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Westwood, should be soft-deleted as an expired prod, rather than relisted. Bradv🍁 03:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing your request for the "accountcreator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:

• The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
• The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!

Hello Dusti! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk) For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

		The Original Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for contributing to Wikipedia PATH SLOPU 09:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for contributing to wikipedia without seeking any recognition or reward. PATH SLOPU 09:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

		The Userpage Barnstar
		This is for your hard work for creating a attractive and beautiful user page. Regards PATH SLOPU 09:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi I am very upset with the false accusation you have put up that I am a sock puppet of these users I dont even known so please can you don't do this.Nora Fatehi (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I have provided my basis for the checkuser request. It's up to them now on what happens and if they decide to perform a checkuser on you. I'm sorry if this upsets you, however, the information I've provided makes this seem rather highly suspicious. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

But I am not these people why don't you get it and please put me off the suspicious list. I am not a sock puppet of anyone.Nora Fatehi (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC) Please I really am defending myself here because you made false accusations about me. And I dont think your sorry was meeaningful and stop lying.

Hi Dusti. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dusti. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I've put Mjahangir777 on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, it occurred to me that Mjahangir777 posted his email address on HistoryofIran's talk page so I looked it up. Turns out that address is associated with a Twitter account, also "Mjahangir777", who is from Iran. Why would an Iranian be feigning ignorance of the Persian language? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature therapy; many of the !votes that were ostensibly for "keep" were actually in agreement with my "TNT delete" argument, in favour of removing the inaccurate content and permanently keeping the page on watch for content that violates MEDRS. Closing as "consensus to keep" is theoretically acceptable, but I think that kind of call should be left for an admin to make. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The premise of the close, in my opinion, is keep - generally I provide a rationale however this case was pretty clear cut, again, in my opinion. I'm human, and I make mistakes and I'm open to feedback and criticism of my actions. From what I can see, I'm not seeing a consensus on a TNT delete - I'm seeing a consensus on keep. You are the only one who !voted that way - others actually said Keep - In its current form; Keep - It needs work, not deletion, and even Keep per [1]. As they say, WP:NOTCLEANUP and a case for WP:TNT hasn't been made. If you disagree with the close you're welcome to revert me and we can request an admin to process the close. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for delete; I'm arguing for a close statement that doesn't implicitly encourage restoration of the content that virtually everyone at the AFD agreed was problematic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that and understand. I've expanded the closing rationale. All that does is further clarify the reason I closed the discussion the way I did. Content dispute and such needs to be done on the talk page for Nature therapy. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dustry, you probably forgot to link to the deletion discussion on the article's talk page following this closure, but not to worry I've done it for you here just for our future reference. Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm - I use the XFDcloser and it seems that it didn't do that (a couple of times). Thanks for the heads up! Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what's the reason for the revert on the Kuchurgan power station except a very vague 'not constructive'. And no, I do not wish to experiment, I do not understand why that comment seemed that something that would fit in a sandbox.

Here's the situation: the only fossil/gas power station (Kuchurgan) in the separatist Transnistrian regime was built during soviet times with a custom electrical grid, now incompatible with EU, and also incompatible with Ukraine. The other two, which you removed, have less than 1% of Kuchurgan's power output (20/30MW vs 2000) and cannot cover Moldova's consumption. Given its needs, Moldova can only import energy from Transnistria, with the upgrades discussed in the article, in 2008, still being renegotiated in 2018 - in the source I linked you.

It is, essentially, another way to keep the regime afloat. Regardless of political affiliations, I believe it is an important thing to note about the power station - it can be used by the Transnistrian regime, given that it is the only station capable of supplying Moldova, and Moldova has the need of power, at characteristics only Transnistria can supply.

It is odd that you think this was a random sandbox edit. It was not gibberish, and I took time to provide links to relevant information. While it could have been assumed to taken a political stance, I tried not to. If anything, how can deleting information be seen as "more constructive"? Regardless, if you think you can rephrase what I said in a more constructive way, I'd be happy to take my time to understand what I did wrong.

The unconstructive edit comes with this edit that you did. Using the software that I use to patrol recent changes, sometimes the right wording doesn't really come out. The issue is some point of view wording that you have - we've got to remain neutral when editing the articles here on Wikipedia. The other downside of Huggle is that it reverts everything in succession. Your first edit to the page looks fine, let's leave out the bit about the station being a "monopoly" unless you can find some reliable sources that include that terminology. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You did not close the AFD as keep: you merely deleted the AFD notice from the article. If you want to close the AFD, you need to do so on the AFD page. I have to say that despite the addition of references, I am very doubtful whether someone who published half a dozen theological tracts is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Peterkingiron: I'm showing that I did close the AFD? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bliss. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Peterkingiron: I am confused? I took a look at the AfD and it was properly closed the first time (2 days before you posted here)? Am I missing something? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Peterkingiron, Per everyone else, I was asked to check and looking at Dusti's contributions, everything was done properly. A script called XFDCloser was used for the close as well so it was all done at nearly the same time! RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 06:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)